Crucial to Paul’s argument in Galatians is that God does not change his promises or go back on his word. The idea that Gentiles can be admitted to the covenant is not a novel one or plan B but has always been God’s purpose.
A look at the text (read Galatians 3:15-18)
Covenants are binding and permanent. This isn’t just something we can say about God’s covenant. It’s true of human covenants too. The most immediate example would of course be the marriage covenant which contains the words “to death do us part.” Technically, Roman and Greek covenants such as wills could be revoked by a new will or amended. However, Paul is probably doing one of three things here (or a mixture). [1]Either he is asking his hearers to think in terms of common every day understanding rather than exact legal technicalities, or he is pointing to how an agreement back by oath meant that if you went back on your word, curses would result. The third possibility is that he is thinking about how a will is finally ratified not by the signatories but by the maker’s death. In fact, covenants like the one with Abraham were ratified by the symbolic death of the maker in the sacrifices and the oaths (v15).[2]
So, if the covenant with Abraham is permanent and binding, then it still stands. Who then are the parties to it. God is obviously one of them. The other side was “Abraham’s seed” or offspring. Paul then argues that Genesis describes offspring using the singular noun “seed” rather than “seeds”.[3] Of course, this would be grammatically normal. We think of offspring as a collective unity. However, Paul suggests that in that singular word is a clue that something bigger is going on.[4] The covenant is with Abraham and his descendant, one specific person. That person is Jesus. The promises made to Abraham were made to Christ as well (v16).
The covenant with Abraham and Christ was signed off and sealed by God. It was ratified as binding and could not be voided. Then in Exodus, 430 years later, God gives the Law to Moses. This too is a covenant but it is not a replacement covenant. If the one with Abraham and Christ was irrevocable, then the Mosaic one cannot undo its effect. It still stands (v17). This is important because the Jews saw themselves as Abraham’s heirs. However, if they thought they inherited the blessing from Abraham by keeping the Law, then the inheritance would come through law obedience and not through belief in God’s promise. So, if they benefited through law observance then Abraham’s covenant would be voided (v18).
Digging Deeper
Paul’s argument is that God made a binding and lasting covenant with Abraham and his offspring. This meant the covenant was specifically with Abraham and Christ. Remember that the promise in the covenant was of land, people and blessing. God would bless Abraham and his descendant and through them would bring blessing to all nations.
The point then is that it has always been about Jesus and always about the grace of the Gospel. Anyone who wanted to receive the blessings of the covenant, to enjoy life in God’s presence under God’s rule and reign could receive that blessing only in and through Jesus. The law, as we will see had a function but it was never intended and never could act to include people as heirs to Abraham’s blessing. You could not become part of God’s people, receive forgiveness of sin and enter eternal life through keeping the Law.
A look at ourselves
Once again, we are reminded not to be deceived into thinking that anything we might do or say can earn God’s love for us. We are saved by grace alone. It is important that we do not impose works based salvation on others or create a hierarchy in church based on our own measures of how people are doing.
We can also be encouraged as we read these words that they tell us about God’s character. God is faithful to his promises, he keeps his covenant. We can trust him to keep his promises to Christ and to us through and in Christ. God will not walk away from us, desert us, change his mind about us. We are more loved and more secure than we can possibly imagine.
[1] See Keener, Galatians, 263-265.
[2] C.f. Keener, Galatians, 262.
[3] See e.g. Genesis 22:18.
[4] “Four things need to be noted about what Paul is doing here. First, what may be forced or unconvincing for a modern reader would not necessarily have been perceived that way in Paul’s context. In fact, what Paul does here is quite in line with certain kinds of rabbinic interpretation. Second, Paul makes clear in this very context that he understands the collective sense of sperma; see verse 29 … Third, there is good reason to think that some of the promise texts in Genesis do, in fact use sperma as a semantic singular, referring to Isaac, Abraham’s immediate ‘seed,’ or ‘descendant’. Fourth, Paul’s application of the ‘seed’ language to Christ may also reflect the later traditions about a ‘seed’ of David, for example, see 2 Samuel 7:12 where sperma refers to David’s immediate descendant, Solomon but ultimately to the Messiah who would come from David’s line.” Moo, Galatians, 230.
Faithroots 